CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Westwood
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, including protective equipment, testing, cleaning, visiting arrangements and managing outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Targeted infection-control inspection; the home was inspected but not rated, and inspectors found good practice during a recent COVID-19 outbreak.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 14 December 2020. This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control after a COVID-19 outbreak.
They found the home was clean, had enough protective equipment, and followed guidance on testing, shielding and social distancing. Staff were seen using protective equipment correctly.
The home had managed the outbreak well. People who tested positive were supported to isolate where possible, and staff closely monitored people who could not isolate. Relatives could keep in touch by telephone or video link.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the visit checked infection-control arrangements rather than giving a full rating of the quality of care.
Managing the outbreak
Inspectors found that the recent COVID-19 outbreak had been managed well, including monitoring people who could not isolate.
“A recent outbreak of COVID-19 at the service had been managed well.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean and used a cleaning programme that included frequent cleaning of high-use touch points.
“The service was clean with no odours.” from the report
Protective equipment
There were enough supplies of protective equipment, and staff were observed using it in line with national guidance.
“There were enough personal protective equipment [PPE] supplies in place to ensure safe infection prevention and control practices were undertaken.” from the report
Keeping families connected
Although visiting had been suspended because of the outbreak, people were supported to stay in touch with relatives by telephone or video link.
“People were supported to keep in touch with their relatives via telephone calls or video links.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What are the current visiting arrangements, and how would visits be managed during an infection outbreak?
- 02How often are high-use touch points cleaned, and how is this checked?
- 03How do you make sure people who cannot self-isolate are protected from infection?
- 04How often are residents and staff tested, and what happens after a positive result?
- 05What is the most recent full inspection rating for the home?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices during a COVID-19 outbreak; it did not provide a full rating of the home or assess the other care questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 December 2020 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, March 2019
Rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found kind, personalised care and clear improvements since the previous inspection, with some staffing and record-keeping issues to watch.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 29 January 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, a relative, visitors and staff. They reviewed care records, staff files, training records and safety records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from avoidable harm, received their medicines safely, and had care based on their needs and choices. Staff were described as kind and respectful, and people had access to activities and health services.
There were some shortfalls. Some people and relatives felt there were not always enough staff, liquid medicine opening dates were not always recorded, and some staff had missed the required number of supervisions. Inspectors also saw that some staff did not engage fully with people during meals.
The home had improved from Requires Improvement at the inspection in August 2017. CQC said it would continue to monitor the home and return within 30 months if there were no serious risks.
Improved overall rating
The home had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection in 2017. It was rated Good in all five areas at this inspection.
“The provider met the characteristics of 'Good' in all areas. This has improved from a rating of 'Requires Improvement' at the last inspection in 2017.” from the report
Safety systems
Inspectors found that risks were assessed and reflected in people's care. The home also analysed accidents and incidents to learn from them.
“The risks to people's health and safety were fully reflected in the care they received.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People liked the staff and were treated with dignity and respect. Staff supported people to remain as independent as possible.
“People liked the staff and found them to be kind and caring. People were treated with dignity and respect.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's preferences, including personal care, food, drink and the gender of care staff they preferred. People were supported to enjoy hobbies and meaningful activities.
“This meant people received their care and support in accordance with their personal preferences.” from the report
Learning and oversight
The home used audits, staff meetings and care reviews to identify risks and improve the service. Staff could raise concerns with the manager.
“Robust audits were completed and action plans were put in place to address any areas of improvement and development.” from the report
Liquid medicine records
needs fixingOpening dates were not always written on liquid medicines. The manager said this would be addressed.
“We did note that liquid medicines did not always have the date they were opened recorded.” from the report
Staff supervision
needs fixingNot all staff had received the required six supervisions each year. The home had introduced a new process to improve this.
“Records showed that not all staff had received the required number of supervisions as per the providers requirement of six per year.” from the report
Engagement during meals
minorInspectors saw that not all staff engaged with people while helping them eat. The manager said staff were expected to talk with people and would address this.
“We did note not all staff engaged with people when supporting with meals.” from the report
Time for conversation
minorSome people and relatives felt staff were sometimes too busy to sit and talk. Inspectors also saw that some staff were more task-led than others.
“Some staff started lively, jovial conversations with people, whereas others were more 'task-led' and engagement with people was limited.” from the report
- 01How many care staff are usually on duty at weekends and during the busiest morning period?
- 02What has changed to make sure liquid medicines are dated when they are opened?
- 03How do you now monitor that every staff member receives the required six supervisions each year?
- 04How do staff make sure people are included in conversation and supported with dignity during meals?
- 05Which activities and care-plan preferences would you be able to provide for my relative?
This was a planned inspection of the whole care home, covering Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led, including both the accommodation and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 March 2019 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Westwood
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 March 2012.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
75 live-in carers within about an hour of Nottinghamshire
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,260 a week. 63 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.